Put up, or shut upFollow

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16705268/

So, Bush wants to commit more troops to Iraq. I'm sure a lot of you are opposed to this plan, so what would you do instead to fix the "Mess in the Middle East" (I'm so copyrighting that phrase)?

Edit: Forgot the link

Edited, Jan 19th 2007 11:21am by Demea

And yet no one seems to come up with better solution other then let's just say **** it and turn tail and run >.<!

So THAT'S Bush's point... Thks 4 bring it to my atenshun bc i had totaly missed that... i wish i wuz as smrt as u LOL...

Now go back to the Sandbox before you hurt yourself with all that "critical thinking."

I love how the brunt of the argument is "Why don't you just give it a chance?". Well in order to give it a chance; we have to gamble on more people dying.

Then again.. maybe with more people we actually can "get the job done"; whatever that means.


More like we need an army of Dr. Phils and Operas over there to make the 2 opposing factions just get along with each other like us Americans do over here.

German Operas?

As more and more countries continue to withdraw troops (Italy, Great Britian, etc.), we are forced to stretch the US troops thinner in order to pick up the slack. Without additional troops to reinforce those currently deployed, we are increasing the risk that those already overseas will die. Committing more troops does raise the total number of Americans in harm's way, but it also strengthens our ability to deter and repel attacks, which will save American lives.


I think that this goes in the basket of ideas that would escalate the situation, right on top of sending over Barbara Streisand and David Hasselhoff to sing the Iraqis into submission.

So, Jophiel wants to commit 200,000 more troops to Iraq?!

Conservative Conspiracy!

We need to install a totalitarian dictator that rules the country with an iron fist. We should supply him with weapons both conventional and chemical.

I'm actually surprised that you aren't opposed to the war on any moral grounds. I usually stay out of the "OMG BUSH SUCKS" CJ threads, so I don't read much opinion on the war. Are you saying that your only opposition to the war in in the interest of the safety of the American soldiers, or that you support the war in the idea that its ultimate purpose is to liberate and democracize the Iraqi people?

Of course, since we don't have those 200,000 troops to commit, and since the point is indeed moot, you could just be blowing smoke up my ***** Now that would be a liberal conspiracy.

I was against the invasion when it occured and believe that it was a mistake both in rationale and in execution. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion of that.

But I'm also against us hanging around indefinately and getting picked off while we prop up a government beholden to the very militas who are picking us off. And I don't think a phased entry of 20,000 more men is going to do anything to change that.

The new plan that would be in opposition and serve as an alternative to Bush's plan is to withdraw.

Let's look at what's happened there. We deposed a dictator and helped set up a Shiite government with a Constitution that reads not unlike something the Taliban would approve of. The sitting government promised Kurdish and Sunni factions that the Constitution would be revisited, and certain provision limiting civil rights to women and non-Shiites would be softened. This was in exchange for the Sunni's and Kurds quickly ratifying the Constitution.

The "revisiting" hasn't happened yet. The Sunni's are understandably disillusioned.

Meanwhile, our military force is complicating matters. Just as in Beirut in the 80's, we are trying to remain neutral in a civil war. Just as happened in Beirut, we are being seen by all sides as favoring the other. Pretty soon, we will have no friends in the region.

It was a ***** up to go into Iraq in the first place with such a small force. But now the military work is done.

THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS CURRENTLY PLAGUEING IRAQ!

This is the wrongheaded thinking that prevails in the current administration: "keep fighting and we win."

The solutions we need to concentrate on now are diplomatic and political. If we sent a billion troops in there now, we could probably suppress the violence. But we would have to leave eventually. Once the billion troops left, the violence would resume, presuming there is no plan for securing peace.

Anyway, to sum up:

There is no military solution in Iraq.

The solutions are diplomatic and political.

More troops without a solid plan to pursue diplomatic and political solutions to the problems there only means more U.S. deaths.

The Bush Administration is real good at saying, "Go and fight." They're pretty awful when it comes to negotiating peace.

Finally, let's think of World War II. What won the war? Was it our troops beating the other side?

Nope. It was the Marshall Plan that ensured peace.

In World War I, once the Armistice was signed, we had peace. For a while. But because the Armistice was a piece of crap, it wasn't long before we had World War II.

We won the "war" of Iraq. Now it's time to win the peace.

Edited, Jan 19th 2007 1:06pm by bloodywilliam

Well, in theory, if we had "one billion" troops, we could suppress the violence long enough to get the Iraqi army off the ground and make working with the Iraqi government the only legitimate option. Once we left, there would -- in theory -- be a capable Iraqi army and police force who could keep them suppressed.

So long as we're not able to prevent car bombs blowing up the recruits, Iraqi battalions from selling their arms to the local militias, Iraqi police forces from moonlighting as insurgents and the government from protecting al-Sadar's army from American reprisals, that's not going to happen.

Well, I was joking....